Custodial torture — a constitutional shame

EDITORIAL: The tragic death of a suspect in police custody, now under scrutiny by the Sindh High Court, is yet another grim reminder of the widening gap between constitutional ideals and policing practices in Pakistan. Article 14(2) of the Constitution unequivocally states that no person shall be subjected to torture for the purpose of extracting evidence. Yet, time and again, incidents of custodial violence reveal how this fundamental right is routinely violated, often with fatal consequences. The court’s decision to dismiss the bail applications of the police officers involved, along with its directive to the Inspector General of Sindh Police to initiate disciplinary proceedings, is a necessary and welcome step. Justice Omar Sial’s observations cut to the heart of the issue: a nation that fails to enforce even the most basic limits on the use of force cannot claim to be civilised. His rejection of the argument that violence is an unavoidable tool of interrogation is particularly important as it challenges a dangerous and deeply embedded mindset within our law enforcement agencies. However, the fact that such judicial interventions are repeatedly required points to a systemic problem rather than isolated misconduct. Torture has, for too long, been treated as an expedient short-cut in criminal investigations. This reliance on coercion is not only unlawful but also counter-productive. Evidence obtained through torture is unreliable, often leading to false confessions and miscarriages of justice. In the process, the real perpetrators may go free, while innocent individuals – almost always poor and powerless – pay the price with their freedom or their lives. The persistence of custodial torture reflects serious institutional shortcomings. Police forces often lack adequate training in modern investigative techniques, including forensic analysis and evidence-based interrogation methods. Oversight mechanisms are weak, and accountability is frequently undermined by a culture of impunity. When officers believe they can act without consequences, abusive practices become normalised. The High Court’s strong stance should therefore serve as a catalyst for broader reform. Disciplinary action against individual officers, while necessary, is not sufficient. There is an urgent need for comprehensive changes that address the root causes of the problem. This includes investing in professional training, strengthening internal and external accountability systems, and ensuring that all allegations of custodial violence are promptly and transparently investigated. Equally important is the need for change in institutional culture. Law enforcement agencies must be made to understand that on no account is respect for human rights a hindrance to effective policing. The notion that violence is the only way to extract information must be decisively rejected, not only in courtrooms but within police stations themselves. Upholding the constitutional prohibition against torture is not merely a legal obligation; it is a moral imperative. A truly civilised society is one that ensures justice without compromising human dignity, even in the pursuit of truth. Copyright Business Recorder, 2026

Read full story on Business Recorder